5,705
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 2:
Line 2: + + + +
Talk:Activity Library/Editors/Policy (view source)
Revision as of 10:27, 15 September 2011
, 10:27, 15 September 2011→Respect acitvity developers: new section
I support the inclusion of non open source software in ASLO. If it is Sugar compatible and has educational value, why restrict kids access to it. It is an education project first and foremost (though there are other considerations).
I support the inclusion of non open source software in ASLO. If it is Sugar compatible and has educational value, why restrict kids access to it. It is an education project first and foremost (though there are other considerations).
I do think the software should be free (zero cost) because the inclusion of commercial software may lead to a conflict of interest or perceived conflict of interrest. Tony
I do think the software should be free (zero cost) because the inclusion of commercial software may lead to a conflict of interest or perceived conflict of interrest. Tony
== Respect acitvity developers ==
Editlors should respect the priority of developers and take a look only on following ASLO policy for particular activity. There are several way how editors can make their statement exposed without changing uploaded activities itself or restricting access (being logged in), e.g., something like making a stamp that this particular version was tested, make this activity recommended. [[User:Alsroot|alsroot]] 10:27, 15 September 2011 (EDT)